Illegal immigration is a problem to the U.S., and it should be an embarassment (but isn't) to the Mexican government.  The issues that prevent Mexico from joining the ranks of the leading economic countries is embedded in its cultural history, its ingrained inability to have business operate on an open capitalistic market and in short the corruption of its officials.  

The U.S., on the other hand, wishes its neighbor to do well, become a healthy thriving economic partner in NAFTA and provide a continued source of culture and work force.  

To ensure these things, it would be good for the US to dissolve the government of Mexico and undertake the governance of that territory in preparation for statehood.  This would work to eliminate the need to worry about the tax base,  as both the beneficiaries and the tax payers would all be a part of the US federal tax system.  It would eliminate the corrupt Mexican governement (and while ours is bad, the Mexican system is so much worse).  It would also ensure that we provide education to the Mexican next generation, teaching our laws and hopefully providing for the assimilation of the peoples of Mexico - since they are all coming here anyway.  As a side result - it gets rid of the need for documentation to come to the US>.... if this is done, they are already in the US.

See - solves all the problems;.....!!!  of course mr. Fox would not like it as he would be out of a job,  but I have a thought on that too, he could run a nice - non-corrupt government - the govenorship of NJ seems to be appropriate.... no corruption there! nah!!!

this since it is written by someone who has no clue about satire but here goes. Skipping your racist rant in the first paragraph because it speaks for itself, I'll jump to the second part where you say,

"The U.S., on the other hand, wishes its neighbor to do well, become a healthy thriving economic partner in NAFTA and provide a continued source of culture and work force."

The U.S. has gone out of its way over the past two centuries to ensure that no Latin American country becomes a "healthy thriving economic partner." All that the U.S. wants to ensure in Latin America is that the governments do the bidding of corporate interests that need cheap labor and more importantly avoidance of environmental regualtions.

Second, the population of Mexico is almost 110 million so no, they are not all coming here--not even close.

One last note, Vicente Fox's term runs out this year and he will be out of a job in just a few months, so that last swipe is just stupid.

racest rant.... why has Mexico NOT joined the ranks of economically developed countries?  please elaborate with your reason....

"The use has gone out of its way...."  So, the prevention of domination by the Your - a - pee-ing countries is bad....?  two words, Monroe Doctrine.....

Population of Mexico.... whose to  say that they are not all headed north, give Fox's assertions and encouragement...????

Finally, ever know a dictator to step down voluntarily?  Mexico is not a democracy.... I truly hope that I am wrong....  sorry to offend.... seem to be doing that a lot lately!

If we could fugure out a way to take over Mexico and deport them all to Cuba, we could build Mexico into naother Hawiaai. I am all for that.We could keep the hot chikcs. No need to dperot them. We should do this before Bush bombs Iran.

thinking about but Mexico is a democracy. The president serves one six year term and I believe it has gone on like this since 1917.

I will now end the discussion with the person who cannot spell the word "OK"(not to mention "racist" but that is no surprise.)

There is a very good argument that Mexico is not democratic.

But your suggestion that Fox will not step down at the end of his term is your usual panicked hyperbole.   After 70 years of single-party rule, the PRI stepped aside gracefully.

Mexico's problems start with an oligarchic, rigid economic and class structure, but don't include refusal of presidents to observe their term limits.

But what is the sense in talking to somebody who suggests that the entire pathetic population of Mexico will invade the USA on Fox's word?

Your rants are typical of the ignorant racist BS that get in the way of Americans solving this problem.   Because you knew a Mexican once, you're a flaming expert, and you just know that Fox is sending every one of his little communists to take over the USA.

Get a life.  If you really need to beat something, go down to the pound and adopt a dog.

BTW, I happen to agree with increased enforcement, and deporting illegals.  OTOH, I don't agree with spending our last $$ to purge the holy ground of the last illegal, simply because I begin to understand the extent and nature of the problem, and believe we have bigger problems that require more immediate attention...and I also believe that your dumbass thoughtless approach is stupid and un-American.

Mexico can never be another HI, because it is not an island.  

But Cuba IS an island, so it could be another HI.

We can solve this dilemma by realizing that Antarctica is also an island, so we can invade BOTH Cuba AND Mexico, and deport them ALL to Antarctica (except the hot chicks, but the real problem is, how do you decide about the underage ones that are about to become hot chicks?).

Or we could mail them all to China, for use in manufacturing garments.  No, I don't mean skin them, I mean they can MAKE garments.

Then we have TWO (2) new Hawaiis, where Mexico and  Cuba are now.   And while we're at it, we may as well round up some more of those little islands and countries, they may come in handy someday soon.

Oh, I forget about keeping around some houseboys to clean up the mess with the cute chicks.  Save some postage, we don't mail them all to China.

I don't think BizSupe is looking to deport every single last illegal, as that would be a Herculean task to say the least.

He's making the argument that the flow has to be stopped and eventually reversed, and yes, this will take time and money.

You argue that there are more important priorities.  No doubt there are, can you tell us what they are.

IMHO, when we talk a lot of nonsense about the plight of the poor and the unemployed and the underemployed in the US, and then we casually disregard how the pool of illegal alien labor serves as Marx's reserve army of the unemployed, depressing the wage rates of the lowest paid and lowest skilled American workers, I gotta wonder about how much anyone who really sides with the economically oppressed and still is willing to give the illegals a free ride is able to reconcile this contradiction.

Hey, they're foreigners -- we don't owe them anything above what we owe our fellow citizens already in this country.  Do people really think cheap lawn and gardening services and badly underpaid babysitters and totally unskilled construction day laborers is going to benefit them so much as to make this all hunky dory?

It never ceases to amaze me, people cry racist/bigot/xenophobe/uniculturalist and the like whenever one questions the desireability of having a mass of illegal aliens in our midst.  I suppose they think they're burnishing their liberal credentials by defending the oppressed.  Hey, you can do just as well by realizing exactly who in this country the illegals have the greatest negtive effect upon. Our domestic, indigenous oppressed. But you would rather have a cheap head of lettuce instead?

It's fun to joke about the hot chicas, but really is this the basis for a policy?  Or even an opinion?

How is BizSupe's approach stupid [apart from some harsh rhetoric] and un-American exactly?

that BS does in fact want every last illegal deported.  Nothing else explains the vehemence of insisting on minute & fanatical observation of a complex code that he does not understand. In fact, observance of "the law" is the beginning & end of his argument, but he does not seem to understand that it does in fact apply to others than Mexicans, and Fox is not a big factor in it.

I do not think his argument is that the flow should be stopped or reversed, but rather that the law should be observed, AND that the law applies to illegal Mexicans who are invading agents of the Mexican govt.  My words, his logic; but you can see we take different meanings from his arguments (which frankly I have long since tired of - when you start arguing that lots of Mexicans are uninsured and therefore dangerous, so they should be excluded, we are well into insanity).

Priorities by their nature are a balance, and subject to daily change; but for me, I would put a higher priority to ending the war in Iraq.  Concurrent attention to the economy and national security risks, including natural disasters, faltering education, erosion of civil rights, crime, and security of borders from criminals, are important issues, all of which must be balanced among themselves and with others.

You misunderstand that I take the side of the "poor & oppressed".  I don't think that is possible, even when it might be desireable.  OTOH, I don't think that a Mexican orange vendor is any more responsible for our economic issues than say, Enron accountants.  I find it insane to believe that beating up on the most powerless and recent arrivals are going to improve the situation; it's just kicking the neighbor's dog.  Maybe not a lot of harm, except that it makes us into assholes instead of being constructive; it wastes our chances to do something better.

Immigration (legal and not) policy is essentially an economic issue, and the question is, how can an economic issue be affected by law?  The answer is, only with great difficulty.   BS does not seem to appreciate the economic nature (ie, it is fluid, and follows human nature) nor the code itself, which is already incredibly complex, see 8 USC.

When you get beyond policy to individuals, and look a person in the face, you will realize how families are split, etc etc; and while that may not change policy, it does not justify treating people poorly, either.  BS' argument in the end distills to fear of Mexicans, which is pathetic and sad.  Perhaps my prescription would only be different in eliminating the racial rhetoric, but then, style may be what life distills to.

Similarly, while competition among Americans and others seems obvious, I am not sure that immigration policy affects that in the way desired - let alone whether the way desired is wise - what are we going to do, bar imports from China?  The problem of economics is of course the interplay between human cooperation and competition; and blaming an uninsured Mexican motorist (instead of making insurance possible) for the economy, is insane (BTW, as an example, we all know that required insurance is NOT about compensating injured people, it's about making biz for the insurance companies and protecting bumpers in orange county - that is all the 10/30 min policy does, and it's just another scam).  

So, what do we owe foreigners?  What do we owe humans?  That is a question everybody has to answer for themselves, but I suspect that due process (see eg Goldberg v. Kelly, Mathews v. Eldridge - ironically both NY welfare cases) is what we owe humans, and it is, essentially, a "fundamentally fair" process, not one based on the assumption that Mexicans are dirt because they are uninsured, which in fact comes out to "hate/fear the little brown people".  

The logic that "I know a Mexican/lot about Mexican history" is simply not relevant to immigration policy or any given immigrant, even as far as it pertains to a Mexican.

We are not talking about making a border open, or pushing a culture in any given direction.  It's about recognizing that a man who trespasses to feed his family is not a murderer, and probably not as harmful as the driver speeding along with his cellphone; and that Americans do in fact benefit in ways that they refuse to recognize - the economic calculation is basically impossible, but I find it very difficult to believe that the orange vendor is more of an economic drain than eg, city pension accountants and union people who create scams that threaten a city's solvency...

BS needs to (a) learn what he is talking about  (no, it is not presently possible to legalize most illegals), (b) understand the pros & cons, and that it's not a PRI conspiracy, but individuals looking for work, and while policy may require them to be deported, we also need to look to our own role in using them in our economy, and allow them some minimal dignity.   Americans are not so poor that they need to slap people around, as well as deport them.   We can take time to listen to see if they may in fact be citizens or other qualifications, and not merely roust all swarthy folk.  

I know these things because of course I am a logical Vulcan, and much of my data is classified and beyond the ken of many.  Nevertheless, I do not ask you to trust my knowledge of foreigners, only take the logic for its own worth.

post in the reasonable belief that it is a separate thought from your modest proposal; because it is too much like other posts that are not intended satirically.

It is often hard to know when words (eg of Fox or his PRI predecessors) are an indicator of action, but one clue would be ability, and another would be connection to reality.  The reality is that Fox can do nothing in the US except piss off Anglos; and the reason he persists is because he doesn't care; his stance is for internal Mexican consumption.

That you are unable to recognize this, and afraid of it, suggests that you don't know so much about the Mexican situation as you think - even as far as that relates to a cure for illegal immigration.

What we have to be careful of is cures that are worse than the disease.  Because the disease is complex and subtle (why don't you actually read a little title 8 and tell me how simple it is?) we should be careful about thinking radical surgery or massive drugs will be a useful cure.

Meanwhile, I do not buy the idea that some orange vendor who arrived last month is more to blame for American problems than, eg Enron style accounting.  In fact, the illogic of blaming the least powerful and most recent arrivals is same sort of thoughtlessness that eg got us into Iraq.

True, "that BS does in fact want every last illegal deported".  

Not true, "fanatical observation of a complex code that he does not understand."

True "In fact, observance of "the law" is the beginning & end of his argument"  because without that - we are lawless.

True "that the law should be observed,"

Modified "AND that the law applies to illegal Mexicans who are "UNWITTING" invading agents of the Mexican govt."
 
And you asked about "what laws they break and insist that they are harmless"  they are not.

True - we do need a priority to end the war in Iraq.

True - "Concurrent attention to the economy and national security risks, including natural disasters, faltering education, erosion of civil rights (this one is not really as troublesome as you make it hysterically to be), crime, and security of borders from criminals (how are you going to do this with your "open border policy?" and you are here being internally inconsistant) , are important issues.

You do.  but offer no real solutions...  "just let them pick the oranges and all will be well"...."You misunderstand that I take the side of the "poor & oppressed".  .....  constructive; it wastes our chances to do something better."

Incorrect, I do see this as a cultural/economic/political issue.  what I fail to understand is how one can make economic policy without being able to define who it is to impact.  Example, it would be just great to have pharmaceutical companies in Abilene Texas....  help the local economy, stimulate jobs, and the accompanying social services.... but realistically Abilene is structured wrong for such an acquisition.  No question, these are complex issues, but to simply throw up ones hands and say we can do nothing because it is complex - is also a mistake. "Immigration (legal and not) policy is essentially an economic issue ... only with great difficulty.   BS does not seem to appreciate the economic nature (ie, it is fluid, and follows human nature) ... 8 USC.

True - but policies that doom whole societies to essentially a stone age existance for generations is also bad - and your policy does exactly that.  "When you get beyond policy to individuals, and look a person in the face, you will realize how families are split,"

Untrue. My arguements apply to all undocumented workers.  the rhetoric has come only from spock.  his racial slurs have been an insult.  and while I do not fear "Mexicans" I do fear any large enough group that can essentially occupy our territory, and change the existing government.  that is real power - and as I stated earlier - requires no army. "fear of Mexicans, which is pathetic and sad.  Perhaps my prescription would only be different in eliminating the racial rhetoric, but then, style may be what life distills to."

Tricky policies to be sure.... which is why maintaining a technological advantage is essential - and that is only possible through education - which in some neighborhoods is at a standstill because of Spanish/english Mexican/US history debates...."Similarly, while competition among Americans and..... imports from China?  The problem of economics is of course the interplay between human cooperation and competition;

Not blaming anything on motorists.... but YOU requested an example of "breaking the law" "and blaming an uninsured Mexican motorist (instead of making insurance possible) for the economy, people, it's about making biz for the insurance companies and protecting bumpers in orange"
True but what is the best way to help satisfy the debt... real question - for which you provide no real proposal.
"What do we owe foreigners?  What do we owe humans?  That is a question everybody has to ... because they are uninsured, which in fact comes out to

Again - false  "hate/fear the little brown people".  

Setting policy without understanding the historical context is not only stupid - but caused two world wars, got us into Korea, Viet Nam and Iraq.  Can't have it both ways "mr. sprocket."  ya gotta know how they view their neighbor to the north.  it is not a benign view. Much of our foreign policy is established by many who do not understand the historical context - (Present commander in chief the best example of a C/D Yalie who sets foreign policy dealing with nations he does not even know where they are! - at least Clinton got out an atlas occasionally)  The logic that "I know a Mexican/lot about Mexican history" is simply not relevant to immigration policy or any given immigrant, even as far as it pertains to a Mexican.

It is easy to give a man a fish today, it is harder to teach him to fish... which benefits him the most in the long run.???   "We are not talking about making a border open, or pushing a culture in any given direction.  It's about recognizing that a man who trespasses to feed his family is not a murderer, and probably not as harmful as the driver speeding ..... and union people who create scams that threaten a city's solvency...

BS needs to (a) learn what he is talking about  (no, it is not presently possible to legalize most illegals "DON'T WANT TO"), (b) understand the pros & cons, and that it's not a PRI conspiracy(CORRECT ME IF WRONG, SURE YOU WILL, BUT PRI HAS BEEN OUT OF OFFICE FOR 7 YEARS OR SO), but individuals looking for work, and while policy may require them to be deported, we also need to look to our own role in using them in our economy(AGREE - EMPLOYERS NEED TO BE TAKEN TO TASK), and allow them some minimal dignity (DIGNITY CANNOT BE GIVEN TO ANYONE- IT CAN ONLY COME FROM WITHIN).   Americans are not so poor that they need to slap people around, as well as deport them(WE ARE RAPIDLY COMING TO AN END OF OUR ABILITY TO ABSORB MUCH OF THE NEEDS OF OUR OWN NEEDY.)   We can take time to listen to see if they may in fact be citizens or other qualifications, and not merely roust all swarthy folk.  (NEVER WAS LOOKING ONLY TO MEXICANS.... HIS WORDS & INTERPRETATION)

I know these things because of course I am a logical (HIS LOGIC HAS PROVED FAULTY ON SEVERAL OCCASIONS) Vulcan (PROBABLY ILLEGAL ALIEN), and much of my data is classified (STOLEN BY VALERIE PLAME) and beyond the ken of many.  Nevertheless, I do not ask you to trust my knowledge of foreigners, only take the logic for its own worth (IT HAS BEEN TAKEN, WEIGHED AND FOUND WANTING).

-- Modified on 4/12/2006 3:41:38 PM

show me an illegal alien.  You know, on a webcam.

Or tell me how I can identify one.  Because I'll tell you right now, you don't know a legal from an illegal, and that is just the beginning of your ignorance.

ugly mothers, stupid brothers, etc and they still don't like them dissed.

Love them, love their dogs.

does in fact want every last illegal deported".  

That's like catching every speeder.  You gonna pay the bill?   Or just rant?

Let me guess:  you're gonna rant about people who violate laws.   We know you never speed, or violate any other laws, and of course trespassing does far more damage than speeding.  

Looks like you never use your brain, either.

Love their peros?

That's illegal in all 50 states still.

Yes, the relatives.  The less scrupulous domestic help case your home while dusting and mopping, and after you 86 them for pilfering the grocery $$$ and the silverware, their cholo brothers, sons, uncles, cousins, in-laws, friends, acquaintances and assorted hangers-on home invade you.

So stick with the arrogant French maids [if you can find one] and ask her to wear the little French maid uniform with the cute little hat.  You never know...

And I'm told that sponsoring the foreign exchange student really works out great in some cases.  Of course, I haven't got the balls, but others might...

What Ralph Waldo Emerson said about the Mexican-American war is still true today.  Taking Mexico would be like taking arsenic.  The US is as prepared to administer that country in the same way we were prepared to administer Iraq.  However, if you look at the world map, it makes more sense to take Mexico.  

Do you realize that our population is falling if it weren't for immigration?  Do you know that a falling population has never yielded a growing economy?  If you look at our country's history, I can't believe immigration cannot be higher, per proportion of our native population, then it has been at any other time in our history.  

These are the arguments I've heard against immigration:

Immigrants cost too much for the social system in medicaid, education, etc.  Solution: tax the immigrants.  Set them up in their own tax pool. It would help, BTW, if the Republicans hadn't crippled our own programs with wreckless, irresponsibe tax cuts.  

They take away American jobs solution: aggressively prosecute businesses that hire them with the racist idea that they could pay them substandard wages.  Nail these people.

That they break the law by not having proper ID.  Solution, simplify and discipline the Immigration system.  If it overloads our system, have them fill out a single index-sized card.  Assign them a number from a central data bank.  Put it on a magnetic strip.  This shouldn't be difficult, or expensive.  From there, build whatever credit record, education/medical record from that record, which will be handled by other agencies.  

Without the racism driving these arguments, I don't know what the problem is.  

Bizzaro, the US economy is only good on paper.  Corporate profits have risen incredibly during this "recovery."  Wages have been flat.  The problem with trickle-down economics is: we can count on the rich to fix those leaks.  Mostly, in the name of "effeciency."  To the rest of us this economy is very inefficient.  

I think we lose more jobs from outsourcing than immigration.  China and India haven't even warmed up yet.  As wages are supressed here, the US will ultimately have to stop being the buyer of goods.  If that happens, the world economy will hit a depression.  Perhaps though, that could be avoided.  It depends on if we lose jobs too fast, or the housing bubble pops too early.  

Make no mistake, there's a bigger picture to it.  

(a) outsource/import; (b) hire illegals internally; or (c) pay more?

In this perennial 3 way competition, the one thing that makes least sense is to penalize the schmuck who is just trying to do his job, wherever he is.

What kills me is (1) the Republican who wants all the choices, and/or (2) the Democrat who says you can't have any.

http://www.russianinvasion.com/

sounds like you have an overactive imagination....

spoke with a Russian patent attorney, and have been asked to join a Russian co. as head of development... best made Russian product?  the Kalashnikov AK-47   nah, not worried.  Oh, and the russian patent attorney?  Very pretty blue eyes...   but you my friend... should worry.... what with tossing around all the racial slurs...  and the Russian Mafia... is real, and does take itself very seriously...

-- Modified on 4/12/2006 11:24:39 PM

I agree - see previous post.  Things should get real interesting in the next 2 decades.  For the record, tracking patents... its what I do, following federal funding - its also what I do.  We are really slowing down.... partly educational system - partly the rest of the world is not asleep - partly there is something happening to our ability to "get up and tackle problems"  We seem to be evolving into a nation of people who will "think of all the reasons as to why something cannot be done - rather than just doing it."

This nation - up to the last half of the last century was primarily agronomy based... Then industrial... then information based... but that is now shifting.  Once we loose our innovative edge - we loose it.  Based on what I see, lower federal dollars to research (and higher admin costs), fewer students in math, science and technology, and falling innovation - as measured by patents to US inventors... (that is a different # than total US PTO granted patents) we are loosing our edge, slowly right now... but it is accelerating.

Mr. Sprocket did, I repeatedly asked that he not do that.  I agree - it adds nothing to the debate and I personally find it offensive.

With respect to the Chinese "waking up" - Singapore already has... as has India.  Japan is just as worried as are we... I have had multiple chats with their government officials with respect to sparking innovation within their university system.... now there is a social-economic issue.

We are one of the few countries without a national identity card... not that we would want one... just a thought.

pretty sad that you've got nothing more exciting than contemplating the citizenship of people you've never met...

I'm talking about what I've heard from the anti-immigration side so far.  Actually, what I haven't heard.  Their equating improper credentials to evil is... peculiar, and suspicious.  Like they've never had an expired drivers' license.

actually CALL them assholes.  

You must be a Republican.  Or, maybe a Democrat, who says the same thing, but is afraid to actually DO anything about it?

patent attorney licensed and qualified to practice before the US PTO and the company is located in my region... and has been through due diligence.

so, yea, they seem to be legal...  you?  are you?

Like the U.S. wants peace in the middle East.

Same old shit.  Good ole Pete Wilson ran his entire re-election campaign on blaming CA's problems on those illegals who take so much. Hmmm, who else has played this game ?

We need to start deporting assholes.  Give em their own island -- in comparison, leprosy is far more attractive.

I've got my own modest proposal for PendejoDude ...

Like a small brown person would "seem" to be illegal?

"landed" status?  What planet are you on?  And if not in the USA, why are you so worried about their immigration policy?

Guess what, pal.  What you have described does not establish that the person is legally in the USA.  Nor does a driver's license, nor a social security card, nor any level of skin coloration.

What's more, that status won't show up in due diligence through public records.  An employer's verification is the most likely way to compel proof, and if you ain't the employer, you have no business there.

Yeah, I know, it doesn't seem right to you, but that's because you're ignorant.  But we knew that all along.

So, what about all these other illegals doing illegal things that you regularly associate with?   Just more hypocrisy, eh?  But you're just having a good time, so who can blame you?

you to show me your papers.

No, just Catholic pessimism about the essential worth of my fellow man.

BUT for many years I did read a lot of crime fiction, and it does have a surface plausibility about it...

But what if the racism is not present on the part of those who argue a radical anti-immigrant position?  Does that change your opinion of those arguments?

What if the racism is incidental to those who make a radical anti-immigrant position?  To be more clear, what if a person is a racist in his heart but his arguments do not in any way touch upon or reference his racist sentiments?

Your physician, for example, may be a wife-beater and child abuser and medicaid swindler, but if he is the physician best able to treat you, does that change your opinion of his medical skills [as oppossed to your opinion of his worth as a husband, father and esponsible citize]?  Yes, it's not much of an analogy but you do get the point?

If NO RACISTS argued in favor of a radical anti-immigrant position, would you be more open tho those arguements?

It seems that the racist/racism accusation is a very convenient straw man for many people on many occassions in this debate. The avidity with which many grasp this rhetorical WMD makes me wonder a lot about them and their arguments.

An expred driver's liscense is an order of magnitude different from illegal, uninvited, undocumented, unregulated long-term presence in a country other than one's own, particularly when the country has extensive regulation governing who can and cannot enter, and under what condition, and for how long, etc.  And even more so when many people wait years to go through the process legitimately.  If you want to feel badly for immigrants, i suggest you might consider being a little more sympathetic toward the tens of thousnds of guys playing by the rules for the opportunity to live and work in this country.

"But what if the racism is not present on the part of those who argue a radical anti-immigrant position?  Does that change your opinion of those arguments?"

If I find the arguments otherwise poor and devoid of the apparent source of the emotional verve given them, then racism becomes my highest suspicion.  I think it's a fair suspicion, given the nature of these arguments in history, and considering that human nature hasn't changed since.  The only thing that has changed is that those arguments are now widely considered immoral.  Most often, not even the racists want to think of themselves as racist anymore.  

"What if the racism is incidental to those who make a radical anti-immigrant position?  To be more clear, what if a person is a racist in his heart but his arguments do not in any way touch upon or reference his racist sentiments?"

It depends on the strength of the arguments.  I've given my answers to the arguments I 've heard most often made against our immigrants.  None of the questions debated seem that hard to me.  I believe the only thing that makes it hard is racism, hysteria and special interests.  

The way I see it, we won't come down on the racists who hire illegals with the idea that they can pay them pathetic wages, because they're immigrants.  That special interest is at loggerheads with the nativist racists who want immigrants out of here, who think that such employers would then provide higher wages to whiter people.  

"Your physician, for example, may be a wife-beater and child abuser and medicaid swindler, but if he is the physician best able to treat you, does that change your opinion of his medical skills [as oppossed to your opinion of his worth as a husband, father and esponsible citize]?  Yes, it's not much of an analogy but you do get the point?"

I get the point, but it is irrelevant, because that's contingent on the doctor being the best. To sight the equivalent in the debate, I don't find the arguments given the best ones, or the most rational.  
 
"If NO RACISTS argued in favor of a radical anti-immigrant position, would you be more open tho those arguements?"

When you say "radical" I'd like to know what the source of the radicalism is first.  If not racism, what ideology is driving it?  If it takes account of the facts, if it observes universal rights, I'd consider it seriously.  Yet, radicals almost by definition try to apply policies as part of their ideology, with a disregard toward either the facts
and to the human costs that they incur.

Now, I will admit that I am a radical when it comes to universal rights.  

"It seems that the racist/racism accusation is a very convenient straw man for many people on many occassions in this debate. The avidity with which many grasp this rhetorical WMD makes me wonder a lot about them and their arguments."

It's very convenient, but I also think it is quite accurate.  One thing that citizenry didn't realize when they agreed that racism is so evil: it's very hard not to be racist.  

It's not possible to consider racism a deviation of human existence.  We evolved as tribal hunter-gatherers.  A look at that truth reveals that we are adapted to band into tribes and kill the other tribes.  For many of those tribes that remained to study, a lot of times they considered other tribes to be just animals.  Hence, you would see cannibalism practiced.  

This tendency evolved over millions of years.  It's not going to be broken just because the Jim Crow era is over.  Racism is something we have to stay conscious of.  Conservatives, while not usually racist, are at least too certain that the problem is solved.  It can't be solved for eons; it can be fought.  

"An expred driver's liscense is an order of magnitude different from illegal, uninvited, undocumented, unregulated long-term presence in a country other than one's own, particularly when the country has extensive regulation governing who can and cannot enter, and under what condition, and for how long, etc.  And even more so when many people wait years to go through the process legitimately.  If you want to feel badly for immigrants, i suggest you might consider being a little more sympathetic toward the tens of thousnds of guys playing by the rules for the opportunity to live and work in this country."

If the rules were more possible to follow, I would be as you say.  I had some indirect dealings with the INS, and in my experience, it was not the most responsive, efficient, responsible or uncorruptable agency we had.  The three agencies it has been sliced into look to be worse.  They definitely haven't made it simpler.  Meanwhile, Congress has made the laws impossible to follow for most immigrants of certain complexions.      

I don't like the fact that someone is a criminal simply by not having the proper paperwork.  Those are the arguments I've heard.  I don't like considering that the two things immigrants could do to follow  the law are: 1) die; 2) exist somewhere else.    

Yet, I'll confess that I'm radical when it comes to universal rights.  If there's one thing we should be fanatics about, and the one thing I want to survive from our culture, it's that.

Many of the black rights movement very consistantly argue the case that blacks, on the whole, are still not achieving their fair share of prosperity.  One issue that is constantly argued as evidence for this position, is the lack of emphasis within the black community on educational achievement in the world of business.  That is, well educated blacks are not respected by their own community, rather they are labeled "uncle Toms" or sellouts.  To be respected in the black community, it is necessary to adhere to the black caucus of Jesse Jackson and other similar black leaders.  What is truly interesting about this is that blacks such as Condalesa Rice and Clarence Thomas are vilified as sell outs - irrespective of their struggle and triumph in "the system."  Indeed, one hears little of blacks who "make it" in the corporate world, but I see plenty of examples of black men and women who are a credit to their race... and the race of men in general.  But you don't hear of them.

So the lack of respect by the "liberal left" for hard work, intelligent approaches to a career path and indeed differently held beliefs leaves me cold.  The constant chant is "sell out, they were not their own men/women."

That would be fine, for Rice, Thomas and others.... but then there is the strange case of Colin Powell.  He sold out to no one.  and yet he is not recognized as one with high achievement, high moral character, and value to add to our society.  sad that.  

Just so that there are no misunderstandings... there are equally disturbing trends on the right... and their failure to recognize the contributions of the left...  

But back to the point, racism - is not a good thing - my position is not based on race, rather the need for the government to establish the rule of law.  anything less is selective enforcement and the potential to hurt the very people that Mr. Sprocket seems to wish to protect?  

Yes, I agree, it is easy to dismiss arguments with extreme inflammatory rhetoric claiming the other side is the devil incarnate, without really stating the issues... and in this instance the issue is a mass of people, who are unwilling to abide by the laws of our country.... and those that support them (employers and sympathizers).

I do play by the rules, as did my ex-wife.  She ultimately became a US citizen, as have others of my friends from various countries.... and for those who wonder, those who came here legally, are among the first to denounce the bastardization of the entry process.   Why?  because they did it the hard way, and consider the illegal route to be exactly that.

That would mean that all have equal abilities... we don't.  and universal, would mean that you would wish to support the right of a person in Sri Lanka to have the same opportunities and liberties that are existant where? here?   ok. who enforces?

No, I do not think it possible for the US to guarantee universal rights to those in other countries... which is what makes the current folly into Iraq so pathetic.  Intelligent men, before we went in, begged to rethink that position.  

There certainly more simple ways to control the border with Mexico than the Chaos that exists there now.  If you live in a border state (So. CA to TX) then you are acutely aware of the problem and it is not going to get any better without some very serious conversations with the Mexican government and committment by our own government.  Travel in other countries... points of entry are monitored... it is really that simple.  We have made it more than needs.

cause know what!? the papers that we go by are verified through the USCIS.  What business is it of mine... deal with it everyday.  necessary to do business - legally.

and due diligence does demonstrate immigration status - if done correctly to establish eligibility for SBIR grants (as mandated by the SBA - who makes the rules for the program).  Sorry, but guess this is all alphabet soup to you.!!  

as I say, Just keep slingin those racial slurs... sure that some group or another will take exception to the slurs...... If you haven't already offended one.

But dude, tell me - which law school failed you?  cause know what bud... I put you at Harvard when we started, but now, I'd not say that.... night school?  

And out of curiosity, are you a voyeur only?  if not why on TER?! its only for adults ya know.

about how that actually works, and you will find the answer is, not very well, and (b) no system accounts for the fact that people go in & out of status by operation of law, by events that may or may not be known to the applicant.  

IOW, work permits and other benefits are often, perhaps usually, issued for times that are longer or shorter than their KNOWN legal status, let alone unpredictable events that will end status.

Just keep slinging your ignorance...

yea, as we all know, there are limits wrt time and changes... that is just part of life.... but to say "you can never know at a point in time...."  that is not true.

I never said that any status is permanent....  you inferred that I implied that - and I didn't...  



-- Modified on 4/14/2006 8:41:54 AM

Try Tijuana in the spring [GG]

or any other public record.

The person themself does not always know.  The GOVT does not always know.  A stranger walking down the street sure as hell doesn't know.

Any law enforcement program has to decide what its priorities are, who to chase first and how, and who to chase later if ever.   Technical or regulatory status violations are not a direct or immediate harm to anybody - and that includes illegal entries, speeding, bldg code violations, etc.   Major criminal conspiracies are the most immediate threat, and crimes of violence and to a lesser extent theft and fraud are in the middle.

By that measure, ie, risk of most serious harm to the most people, we should probably be spending more effort chasing appointed members of the administration, than illegal orange vendors.

incidences of SAVE failures than successes.  That's the reason that, despite years of work, it's still a fucking PILOT program.

The concept is OK, but the problem is that politically, it is incredibly intrusive, far more than Americans (yes, Americans) would accept; and the only way it would work is if status was much simpler to determine and verify.  

But the practical complexity of the problem (figuring out who we want to be legal, let alone determining who is) defeats any management plan to date.

Most Americans have learned to live with and accept this level of uncertainty.  Very few people are so convinced as you that illegal immigration is the source of so many problems that they will actually put effort into making it a top priority.  

Those that DO put effort into it usually either (a) learn about it, in which case they learn it's not an easy clear or cheap issue, of (b) don't learn about it, in which case they rant endlessly and doom themselves to frustration, as you have.

Freak on, brother.

without even realizing the limits of your experience.

It is logical to point out that, if you are not even familiar with the current law, you can't guess where it has failed, or what changes would result in whatever result you want.   (Your only stated goal is to "deport every illegal".  If that is the goal itself, with no other purpose, then why, what are you trying to accomplish?)

It's logical to point out the hypocrisy of contending - and especially from this site - the law (whatever it is) should be mindlessly observed and enforced, knowing that traffic flows are usually 10-15 miles over speed limits, and YOU'RE (statistically speaking) one of the most likely violators.   That you may not be is just as relevant as the fact that most Mexicans never enter the USA.

It's not about protecting anybody, legal or illegal.  It's about Americans acting intelligently, so as to not waste their resources.

We think that you are feeling guilty about inflammatory rhetoric.  If you aren't, you certainly should.

And I will add that if you think a USC marriage is "the hard way", then you are a clueless wimp.    

-- Modified on 4/14/2006 11:08:23 AM

we think it's hilarious that Pete was busted for hiring his own illegal maid, and then tried to squirm out of it by saying it was his wife that did it.   We really appreciate his efforts to entertain us with his humor...

Perhaps that suggests the sort of interrelationship here, and the need to get the BS blame shit out of the discussion.

We need a system that is not too much of a social imposition, that does not create a continuing incentive to violate the law, and does not harm our country by harming people who contribute to it.   That is a tall order for any policy, and we need to know when we have reached the point of diminishing returns.

It may be possible that we cannot determine the point of diminishing returns until we solve more pressing problems, eg our expensive adventure in Iraq; our energy policies, etc.

point at hand.  with respect to feeling "guilty about inflammatory rhetoric" - sorry, but I don't because I have never acted in a racist manner.... nor used the type of language that you have resorted to -

Just because someone takes a position that may, in the immediate future, seem harsh on a particular group of people, does not mean that in the long run, it may be a position that ultimately benefits that same group.  Without documentation, employers do abuse the workers...  do provide substandard work conditions.  With it, things improve.  Yea, prices go up, but I am willing to go with that, to avoid other issues down the line...

With respect to USC marriage and the Hard way...   no, I know others who truly did come here the hard way... know what, they are more enraged than I.  They know what we stand to loose... especially if your country is invaded... and you wind up out of power....

but - I forget - you say that we cannot predict future trends....  true we cannot do it with certainty, but again, with some degree of acceptance of uncertainty - we do plan for the future.  go figure.

Again, why hide behind the alias?

How much penicillin should I pack, and is the xchange rate favorable [it usually is]?

Most importanly, Spock, will my enjoyment of the Donkey Show be ruined by humorles and noisy PETA spoilsport types?

Your response seems over-dependent IMHO on finding or alledging racism on the part of those who argue for a radical anti-immigrant position.  As such, I remain unconvinced if that is going to carry the weight of your argumennt.

There are some radical anti-imigration types who base their arguments on ecological and environmental considerations -- thing like uneven and rapid population growth, extra/excessive demand for limited resources, and like arguments.  YES, that may be a cover for dark and ugly racist sentiments lurking deep in their hearts, but you'd really have to work hard to make the case thee I think.  

I don't think emperically that if illegal immigration was radically curtailed that white racists would be getting higher wages, as you suggest might be behind some of the immigration restriction thinking.  That labor would be drawn from groups currently underemployed and underemployed in the US workforce -- African-Americans, native born hispanics, and yes a few die-hard white guys hanging around there somewhere.

I think you're entirely too cavalier about the difficulties immigrants face in legaly entering the country.  Your attitude seems to me to be that, since it's difficult, time-comsuming, frustrating, sometimes expensive, these laws can be ignored with impunity.  I find that attitude amazing [and apologies in advance if I'm misstating your position] and in no way a help to your basic argument.

Universal Rights?  How does Universal Rights apply to the question of how and when the US government acts to regulate it's borders and the entry of foreign nationals into the US?  Are you like one of those Wall Street Journal "there shall be open borders" guys?  Are you asserting a universal right of any person anywhere at any time for any reason to cross freely into the territory of another country without restriction?
Hey, w/o exception EVERY SINGLE GOVT AGENCY I'VE EVER DEALT WITH IN MY WRETCHED LIFETIME is time-comsuming, confusing, frustratind and a host of other unpleasant things. So what?  That's the nature of the beast.  Illegals catch exactly zero sympathy from me on that score.

You are anti-racist, that's certain, and commendable indivdually.  I just don't think that your anti-racist sentiments in any way buttress your argument, or even forms the basis of an adequate argument, which still remains unclear to me, re the question of illegal immigration.  As far as I can tell, you are against immigration opponents if racism forms the basis of their argument.  But what is your argument to justify the status quo or whatever alteration in the status quo that you favor?

if it is, I can see why you're wound so tight - your parents had a really strange sense of humor.

But it's OK:  you've been around the world, so you know it all.  

But you don't need to worry, I am half human, and in fact, a derivative USC thru my mother Amanda's birth and residence in Seattle (check the data).   It's all logical.

And my human half also visited Quantico once for about 6 months, but not the installation you cite.  The other one.  You know the one.

So what does any of it matter?   BECAUSE your arguments don't stand on their own legs, so you have to bring in extraneous shit.

I meant that our government recognize that people living in other countries have the same rights.  Meaning: that if or when they come under US jurisdiction, they are treated as people with rights in with the same respect as US citizens.  Meaning, that we don't lock them away in prison and torture them without a right to habeaus corpus.  

So, I'm talking about enforcing rights not to those clearly outside of our administrative and jurisdictional reach, but to those who are clearly within our reach.

Really, I believe the main problem is that there is employment for them.  Literally, it's black market jobs.  A single illegal immigrant might be difficult to trace, but their work-places aren't.  I did say I thought it was racist to hire immigrants with the idea that you could pay them far less than citizens.  I suggest you come down on the employers, who can't hide as easily.  

It is not a suggestion that I make to help illegals.  It specifically makes immigration to the US far less attractive.  So will putting them in their own tax pool to pay for their social services.  

This will discourage them from coming over, and will encourage those who come over to leave.

It isn't just a lack of prosperity that is the issue.  It is not liberal values that cause resentment of Condalesa Rice or Clarence Thomas within that community.  The problem there is different than liberal values.  The problem is that the "black community" as we have called it, has never felt as though white America has ever made peace with it.  After the Civil War, whites made peace with whites.  During that truce, the Jim Crow laws were allowed to re-institute a renewed slavery and caste system, punctuated by lynchings.  Again, I don't believe that they ever felt white America made peace with them.  

Blacks are reminded that they are in hostile territory by the police.  The reason why Rice and Thomas are seen as sell outs is that they've made a separate peace, and, whether justly are not, they are seen as denying the problem to white conservatives, who are too willing to treat racism as a problem already solved.    

It isn't just in economics that blacks lag behind.  It's in quality of medical care compared with whites of the same socio-economic level, job discrimination has been tested experimentally, and a disparity exists there.  They are left to inhabit homes contaminated by lead, and basically, other polluted areas.  It isn't just the economic disparity, it's the continuing insults of it. We arrest their drug dealers, when R.J. Reynolds can market its products in the community with impunity.  

About rule of law:  there is something very incomplete about that formula, Bizarro, and in your own way, you recognize that.  We both break the prostitution laws, so there are cases that trump rule of law with you.  You don't play completely by the rules.  

The problem with the "rule of law" principle is, it gives the people all the responsibility and none to government.  The complete phrase would be "rule of law by a government held responsible to its sacred duty to enforce and uphold rights."  Otherwise, the government, and the faction controlling it, has the complete right to make the rest of us evil.  

That's what I fear with immigration.  I remember my sister-in-law and the hassles she had with the INS.  Now, she was a German national, and she knew English.  I could imagine how much those troubles would be multiplied when you don't know the language and your one of the more "ethnically challenged."  Those who came here legally are of a different class than those who stay illegally.  They'd probably have a lot of criticism for their underclass even without the immigration question.    

I've said to Xiaoming above that I think that racism is a chronic to human nature.  It is not something that can be taken out of us.  We are all still tribal underneath.  We could be vigilant about and fight.  Conservatives who aren't racist are at the least not on the guard against racism.  It doesn't bode well, as several failed states have shown how racial tensions could surface from nowhere and destroy whole countries.

call those that are "successful" (whatever that may mean) sell-outs.  I don't buy these arguments with respect to blacks as much as I would have 10 or 20  years ago.  By the way, in the "South" I went to college with blacks  --- in the 60's!  while much of the "northern" ivy league was still segregated... as I say, things are not always as they appear.  but I would agree, that simply getting a college education, for a lot of blacks, in that time period, was not helpful in getting a better job or better wages.  Progress is being made- and for one I would rather celebrate success (as models for future success) than not.

And yes, we break the law.  At least we are both "adult" enough to admit it.  What I find offensive is Mr. Spock's denial of that, or if he does not indulge, he should not be on this forum.

With respect to INS, I have no problems changing the law, with the following caveats -1) you must register (country of origin, some sort of ID, where you are going in the US -simple stuff) when entering 2) you must obtain a work permit and 3) Should you be here for more than 6 months you must work to change your status and learn English if you are to participate in ANY educational programs within the US and finally, 4) sign an agreement that you will abide by our laws.  I know that is not perfect, but at least it will give us a guestimate of the number and location of the people coming in.  That's pretty simple....   What I dislike is the complete "openess" of the border.. it is problematic, for us, and for some of the people who die making the entry.

I gotta say, when we went through INS, we went through in a large metro area....  we knew English (not that that was a help, as EVERYONE spoke either Spanish or Portuguese - in fact we often joked, we want someone who spoke my wife's native tongue...lol) and yea, it was not easy - so?  your point?  Making it easy?  I'm actually ok with making it challenging.

I am aware of the phrase... "rule of law by a government held responsible to its sacred duty to enforce and uphold rights."  Which, as I interpret it, means the rights of its citizenry!  not some trespasser who is simply in the country illegally - to me, illegal entry = no rights, none whatsoever. - - As I have posted before, we (the US) cannot and should not be held responsible for civil rights in the rest of the world... That type of thinking is being used to support our efforts in Iraq.  (So for all of you who wish illegal immigrants to have rights in this country, I guess you support our efforts to ensure civil rights to those in Iraq, right?)  Sure, I know, if not us who?  Well, call me simple, but I thought that was what the UN was supposed to do, but we all see how really free of corruption that org is.

So, I guess you will all label me a racist, just because I see wish to see an orderly immigration policy, not the chaos and the drain on our social support systems that exists now.

As I posted to Spock, the jobs that he so ignorantly defends are paid for by $$ from most of us, buying the lettuce, tomatoes etc....  Those $$ are dependant on our system that is supported by a technical edge in the world... if our educational system cannot keep ahead of the world with respect to technical superiority, then the jobs will go eleswhere...  if we overburden our schools and cannot educate the next generation of technical innovators, we will fail and the $$ will not be there to pay the migrant farm worker....  yea, it is a matter of economics....  and a pretty simple one at that.

The cost of educating a technician - that is - someone just able to follow "technical instructions"?  Two to four years post high school - minimum cost per year $30,000.  And even then, you do not have the innovator, and before they are really up to speed on the job is another year to two.

We need to bear the cost of getting them there.... which means K-12... and that is the very place where the  illegals drain the system.

-- Modified on 4/15/2006 9:01:36 AM

that if they are here illegally, we don't jail them... we deport them.  I have to laugh, as I was on entry into another country once - an immigration agent for the country I was entering had ID'd an undesirable... ALL HELL BROKE LOOSE!  there was much arm waving and raising of voices - on both sides... but the dude and dudette were carted off - to be put on a plane to whereever it was they came from... country of entry?  The enlightened republic of FRANCE!  lol

does say one thing of value, the illegal immigrant (and associated problems in his country, no matter which) is exactly 1/2 the problem.  If we don't go after the other half... then we encourage the very thing that has us up in arms.  Republican supporters like the cheap labor... and Democrats like the concept of voter-base support...  result - neither side does anything.  The somewhat goofy Mr Specter's proposed bill is one example.

Amnesty - how about a little for the taxes we pay?!

(1)  Penecillin won't do it anymore; we are back to the good old days of taking your life in your hands; (2)  the exchange rate is really not so favorable anymore (not like it ever was) - it's really more a matter of some things are expensive (infrastructure) and other things are cheap (most everything else); (3) There are no humorless & noisy spoilsports in MX, especially the PETA types.  There are vicious and humorless bandidos, and many of them work for or are affiliated with the govt.  Once again, you take your life in your hands... (4)  I don't think you can get a Donkey Show.  Just about anything else, but probably not as good in many ways as it would be in the states.  You have to be looking for a mood, I think.

It will relieve depression.  It either gives you something real to worry about, or otherwise something to do - it is a real depression reliever, much better than any meds.  Have you ever heard of a clinically depressed Mexican?  Of course not; they have real problems.

Your primary argument that "every illegal should be deported" is that, "it's the law".  

How does that assertion raise the question of Spock's compliance with the law?   How would that be relevant?

In fact, others noted the irony of BSD's advocacy that others should be held rigidly to the law, regardless of the nature of the law.

Our point has been focused on the question, if you don't know the law, how can you have any idea what changes might make it more successful?  

And do you suppose that maybe the reason we are in this situation is that economically, the cure might be much worse than the disease?

We think you argue from vast depths of ignorance and misunderstanding.  Why would you, or anybody do this?  Because it's emotionally satisfying.  It's time honored political entertainment.

Your assertions about registration and work permits, etc are abysmally ignorant.  At some level, those things are done; and they are ineffective.  "Sign an agreement to abide by our laws"?  What planet are you from?  Do you think that does any good, in any country?  Do you think it's necessary?  Do you know that ignorance of the law is not an excuse?

Are you aware that "illegal entry = no rights" means that an illegal entrant may be murdered?  Of course you don't mean that.  You're just venting, and taking exception to Spock pointing out your ignorance.

Only a person with a vast depth of ignorance could be so certain...

Racism is about making irrelevant distinctions.  Causally connected distinctions are legitimate.  And of course, people argue about what "cause" is.  But a person could legitimately call your approach racist, because (a) you don't begin to understand the connections, and (b) substitute understanding with assumptions, primarily about Mexicans.

So you're racist in some respects.  So what?  There are worse things, and in your case, your certainty based on obvious ignorance (you don't even google to find out what you're talking about) is far more harmful.

I suppose that is inevitable, because what good is it to have facts if you aren't going to connect them?   If you think that strict compliance with every law is OK for others, but not you; and that any questions raises the issue of the questioner's compliance, well, you've got some logic problems.

Excuse me, but this is paranoid.  Like in an alias, asking who you are is a reasonable question.  Having it documented so the person asking isn't left paranoid is also usually reasonable.  

So, instead we have our social security numbers, and people are given great latitude for fraud.

I have heard of immigrants waiting in prison for months just till their case can be processed.  

They were kept in real prisons with real criminals.

I don't know about France being enlightened, but there wouldn't be a US if it weren't for the French.  In fact, France fiscally bankrupted itself supporting our revolution, and then suffered a revolution of its own.  

It's ironic to me that this country is now closer to Britain-- now that's a country we should look into granting statehood to.  That would be an irony, though.

Statehood with Mexico might eventually happen anyway, but not at all in the way you envision.

presents themselves as an authority on every topic... is you.  Questions, I have em - you bet.  Calling me a racist for requesting simple documentation?  Excuse me, but when the police stop you, they ask for documentation - cause if they don't please let me come and live in your state.  Ok?  

And yes, I actually do think that at some level holding the law up to people does some degree of good.  You want an example?  When Rudy Guiallani enforced nuisance crime laws in NYC, there was a general improvement in the general compliance with other laws...  maybe not a strict cause and effect, but quite frankly, I never did like my car windows washed by some drunk draging a rag, dampened in the gutter, over my car.  Spock, people (all people irrespective of race, creed, religion or country of origin) will actually do whatever they think that they can get away with... Even you do whatever you think you can get away with; you post on TER, insult others and yet, you are still here.  You use language that is derogatory to ethnic groups and impune the opinions of others, and yet, you are still here.  I may not agree with other posters, but I do try to respect their point of view and understand where they are coming from and why.

Clearly you have not had to directly deal with the results of illegal immigration directly... and for the record, I have worked with Mexicans... in a very intersting way... lol, no not a provider. Most recently a Chem E. who was pretty good at what he does.

WRT logic... my statement "illegal entry = no rights" does not mean that an illegal entrant may be murdered... most of the laws dealing with homicide take into account that the victim, cannot press charges... go figure.  so in this instance, the victim, does not need rights.  And if you are worried about murder of Mexicans crossing the border, please tell Fox - to develop his economy and discourage the illegal entry into the US.

WRT this hobby, your presumption is that I consider myself above the law... I do not.  Get caught, be punished... you?  you hobby?

Racist - a true racist believes that people of other races are so stupid and incapable as to be unable to provide for themselves; they need to be propped up by the efforts of others.  That is not the way I see it.  

Why the pseudonym?  What are you hiding?  

-- Modified on 4/19/2006 10:35:54 PM

their country - even Mexico -  As far as illegals in prison.... get caught in Mexico, or Israel and see what joys await you!  You will wish for an American prison.  There, prison is no joke.

And Statehood for Britain?  Well, I liked that other purty lady,.....  but tha one that chuckles is with now....   lets just say she ugly.  oops... my racism is showing.  lol

Mr sprocket.... loosen up!

"There are some radical anti-imigration types who base their arguments on ecological and environmental considerations -- thing like uneven and rapid population growth, extra/excessive demand for limited resources, and like arguments.  YES, that may be a cover for dark and ugly racist sentiments lurking deep in their hearts, but you'd really have to work hard to make the case thee I think."

I find this argument to be weak.  The problem is that ecological and environmental problems can't be broken down and parceled according to nation-states.  I will add again that without the addition of immigrants, the US would have a falling population-- which has always signaled an economic disaster.  During the 50s, we added population at many times the rate of what we're seeing today.  

"I don't think emperically that if illegal immigration was radically curtailed that white racists would be getting higher wages, as you suggest might be behind some of the immigration restriction thinking."

I don't think so either, empirically, but many white supremists do believe that, or that's the idea I get.  When I hear arguments, true or untrue, about immigration supressing wages, can you come to a different conclusion?  True or not, they're acting on it as though it's a fact.  Or they want to appeal to people who have that idea.

"I think you're entirely too cavalier about the difficulties immigrants face in legaly entering the country.  Your attitude seems to me to be that, since it's difficult, time-comsuming, frustrating, sometimes expensive, these laws can be ignored with impunity.  I find that attitude amazing [and apologies in advance if I'm misstating your position] and in no way a help to your basic argument."

I make my argument ad hoc looking at the fact that they are ignored with impunity.  Look at the marches!  Given that the numbers of illegals are probably in the millions, given the fact that the native US population is falling, that we have troops in Iraq, that our government budgets are strained at all levels, it seems rather cavalier to me that you think there's much of a choice.

So, I suggest 1) simplifying the registration process; 2)enforcing immigration laws primarily on employers (there are fewer of them than immigrants, for one); 3) put immigrants in there own tax pool for the purpose of paying for the social services they absorb.  

If conservatives are in any way right in their agenda, 2 & 3 should encourage most immigrants from coming or staying in the US.  

Universal rights:  I'm just saying that it's wrong that they are imprisoned for months on end without a trial.  That's my practical objection.  They have to be treated  as though they have inalienable rights.  

Government agencies: I'll say I've had the same trouble as you have lately, but I didn't notice them really being a match for your description till 1983-- a few years after Reagan came into office.

     

Is there ANY question that you can answer, instead of shooting off on a half dozen tangents?  What are you doing, blowing a smokescreen to hide your ignorance?  Ain't working.

it must have been HORRIBLE, having to stand in line for hours a dozen times because you didn't know what the hell you were doing....incredibly worse than having to spend a couple days crossing the desert, or be jammed in a trunk, so you could come to the US and dodge cops and try to live between the cracks from the crumbs that fall from the big tables.

That's tough, it's what happens when you're illegal, and sympathy is irrelevant.  

But to  think that you had it rough, or that the accident of your birth somehow makes you virtuous, is simply an indication of how ignorant you are.

-- Modified on 4/20/2006 12:17:48 PM

For the record, who said I was born in this country?  you?  or me?

And who said I did was not grateful to be here? or that I am virtuous, certainly not me... and you?  You hobby?  Why hide behind the alias?

in as far as they aren't always beaten up at the gate.  

Just like everybody else.

Exactly HOW are "Hispanics" assisted?  Is this what queers you?  What exactly is it?

"Factoids" and snipets of other peoples statements - thereby distorting meaning.  They also tend to pick a position that they assume someone else would take, then tailor the snipets to fit what they believe that others would do/believe... in short fabrication from parts of what others say to fit their belief.

i.e., exactly how are Hispanics assisted, as you allege?

Look, most people who have this or that racist view do not consciously believe that skin color is an issue.  Sure, some do - those are more asshole than racist.

And as we explained, racist is not the worst thing in the world, nor even halfway there.  It's just a generally mild form of ignorance, ie, the assumption that there is some sort of causal connection to a group and an undesired result, when in fact it's just an ignorant assumption.

Now, we want to know what the basis of this general assistance to Hispanics that you allege is.    AFAIK, no, NONE, Hispanic groups are eligible for classification as refugees, while all sorts of other nationalities are.   That would be a strong indicator that you're wrong.

If you're talking about domestic groups, can you point to some sort of general program or policy that is not also extended to blacks or other ethnic groups?   Or analogous programs for women, or anybody except straight white males?   The fact that our society exalts pathetic victimhood does not benefit Hispanics more than other groups - what it does is fuck the guy who wants nothing more than to work for a living.

explain exactly how "Hispanics - regardless of country of origin, are assisted"


Don't be shy - we want to know if there's any discrimination in American policies.

Or is this something you "just know", ie, pulled outta your ass?

each of us is with respect to our "identity."  Who we are - is a very valuable comodity... and some more than others.  I must admit, under certain circumstances I feel very comfortable handing over my identification to others (example, job application) while in other circumstances I am very guarded (example, the e-mail for Nigerian transfers of funds).  

Our society is likely to become MORE not less open with respect to identity.... so some form of "national ID"?  as you point out, many already use the SS# for that.  

the Hitler reference.... not so funny - and certainly, given the electronic information age, filled with danger...

is this another problem you have with the law that should be mercilessly enforced against everybody else?

because that scene happens at major US ports of entry about HOURLY.   Check out secondary at San Ysidro, and you'll see a fucking LINE, and half of them will be busted...it's not even worth noting unless somebody pulls a weapon.  And yes, they lock up MINORS, often for months...we've had literally thousands of Cuban Marielitos in custody since Carter's regime, without charges, except that they are inadmissible furriners.   While I have no better ideas, for you to claim otherwise is only the tip of the iceberg of your ignorance.

Now you may think a relatively clean jail is a good deal, but that's your opinion...for somebody coming from Dirtland, that's not at all such a good deal.

it'll be waiting when you get back from the potty...

and see exactly what sort of enforcement goes on?   See if the messicans EVER stop you, and see if the muricans EVER let you in within an hour (try around midnight).

Loosen up?  You mean, get excited about your hallucinations?   Too boring.

not so important for you?

Both comments are very pointed - identity is easily violated, and as much as possible, it's not good to put sensitive data in the hands of agencies that may  misuse it...but at the same time, it can also be used as a way for criminals to hide, and some balance has to be struck.

The ONLY thing unreasonable about your position is the core of your arguments, ie, that the law should be applied stringently to others, but not so much to you... well, I'll take it back, the fact that you really don't know, or care to know, that much about the law, is pretty unreasonable too.   To think we're going to make the country better by knee-jerk entertainment recipes by people whose primary qualification is standing in line, is pretty damned stupid.

SOOOOOOOOO, how's that flight to Miami?  You wanna tell us exactly how 'Hispanics of all countries are being assisted?'

-- Modified on 4/21/2006 3:22:43 PM

Identity?  you bet it can be misued.  By agencies?  you bet. But if I have to put my identity in the hands of an agency (as required by law in some instances, DMV, IRS etc) or a random e-mail by someone claiming to be from Nigeria, guess which I would "sorta" Trust.  

Dude, you know nothing of my qualifications.  And I know nothing of yours.  That about makes us even.  As far as you know, I could be Cuban - or Mexican.  Maybeee....???  wouldn't that be the kicker.  Actually I have been to my countries consulate office in London... but not in the US.  Clues, I give you clues but you cannot put tab A into slot B.  Go figure.

because they cannot afford psychiatric care. As well as frightfully few clinics in Mexico.  Ay, pobrecitos!

Besides, los Mexicanos have a simple tried-and- true and time-honored remedy for depression -- migration to the US.

And i bet Salma Hayek was slightly blue when she didn't win the Oscar a few anos back.  And that hardly rates as a major problem as life tragedies go.

psychiatric care and clinics; and a good cure is coming to the USA.

Very reasonable views, we think.